New York — The United States has claimed that Syria and Israel are edging closer to a preliminary agreement designed to reduce tensions along their shared frontier, a move Washington hopes could mark the beginning of a broader security dialogue between the two long-hostile neighbors.

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, Tom Barrack, the U.S. Special Envoy for Syria, said the two sides have engaged in talks that may soon yield a limited but significant understanding. According to Barrack, Israel has indicated willingness to halt its strikes inside Syrian territory, while Syria would commit not to deploy heavy equipment, artillery, or other large-scale military assets near the Israeli border.

“If finalized, this would represent the first practical step toward a more comprehensive security arrangement between Syria and Israel,” Barrack said. He framed the talks as an exploratory pathway that could ease tensions in one of the Middle East’s most volatile theaters.

The announcement is significant given decades of hostility between the two nations. Syria and Israel have fought multiple wars since 1948, and while the direct battlefield confrontations have receded in recent years, periodic Israeli airstrikes on Syrian soil — typically aimed at Iranian-linked targets and Hezbollah positions — have kept relations tense. For its part, Damascus has accused Israel of undermining Syrian sovereignty and exploiting its internal conflict, while Israel insists its strikes are defensive, aimed at curbing Tehran’s entrenchment in the region.

Barrack emphasized that the tentative arrangement is not yet finalized. “The broad outlines are clear, but we are awaiting the green light from the political leadership on both sides,” he explained. Diplomats believe the agreement’s credibility will rest on both governments formally endorsing the terms and showing political will to implement them.

The U.S. envoy suggested the move could be an opening for deeper engagement. “De-escalation here could serve as a stabilizing force for the broader region, opening doors to additional diplomatic progress,” he said, underscoring Washington’s interest in reducing flashpoints that could derail wider Middle East negotiations.

Analysts note that if realized, the understanding would mark a rare moment of convergence in a conflict-ridden relationship. While a comprehensive peace deal remains remote — Syria still insists Israel must return the occupied Golan Heights, and Israel shows no indication of doing so — even limited security steps could reduce the frequency of military incidents. In a region where misunderstandings can rapidly escalate into conflict, such confidence-building measures are seen as valuable.

Skeptics, however, caution that implementation could prove challenging. Syria’s reliance on Iranian and Russian support complicates its room for maneuver, while Israel’s security establishment remains deeply wary of any perceived encroachment by Iranian-backed forces, even far from the border. Any violation of the terms — whether intentional or accidental — could swiftly unravel the fragile arrangement.

Still, U.S. officials maintain cautious optimism. By offering a structured commitment from both sides, the proposed agreement would create a mechanism to prevent flare-ups and allow for regular dialogue, even if indirect. For Washington, success here would demonstrate that incremental diplomacy can yield tangible gains, even between adversaries locked in decades of hostility.

The next steps depend on political decisions in Damascus and Jerusalem. If leaders on both sides endorse the plan, it could be announced in the coming weeks and implemented shortly thereafter. If they hesitate, the proposal may stall as just another missed opportunity in a long history of failed attempts to reduce hostilities.